PB 
35 
H55h 


iitornia 

ional 

lity 


^.. 


^■ 


\\>       •^<5Aav<ian  i'^' 


<  \^\l-  LltHi;-\r.  I'Cy^ 


vin^  Aurrirr, 


§  JUf^  i  iJUlVi 


iiin 


"?1 


■^Aa3AINa3UV 


33 

-< 


o; 


OFG 


'Aj 


<^ 


^WUNIVtWV/i 


'Jr 


^ 


\V\Ell,' 


<rl 


.^v 


^J'ilJD' 


:^^ 


^^ 


ri 


so 

> 


■njuv 


^ 


aOFCAIIF0% 


'■J  iJji>\-:!U'. 


:J.\!,> 


0 


-<\; 


>F0% 


'^ 


.<i^ 


\WEUNIVERy/A 


^VlOS-ANCElfjV, 


-a: 


^I 


Ct 


J        Reprinted  from  the  Modern  Language  Journal,  Vol.  IV,  Xo.  i, 
/O  October,  1919 


r 


5:5 


HAS  THE  WAR  PROVED  THAT  OUR  METHODS  OF 
TEACHING  MODERN  LANGUAGES  IN     • 
THE  COLLEGES  ARE  WRONG? 
A  SYMPOSIUM* 


By  E.  C.  Hills 


IN  the  Educational  Review  of  January,  1919,  President  Nicholas 
Murray  Butler  of  Columbia  University  made  the  following 
statement: 

"Intelligent  youths  who  have  spent  three,  four  and  five  years 
on  the  study  of  one  or  both  of  these  languages,  can  neither  speak 
them  easily  nor  understand  them  readily  nor  write  them  cor- 
rectly. Here,  too,  as  in  the  case  of  the  natural  sciences,  the 
reason  is  to  be  found  in  wrong  methods  of  teaching.  It  is  a  sorry 
commentary  as  to  what  is  going  on  in  our  secondary  schools  and 
colleges  in  this  respect  to  learn  on  the  best  authority  that  there 
are  now  in  France  at  least  200,000  American  young  men,  who, 
after  six  months  of  military  activity  in  France  and  three  or  four 
hours  of  instruction  a  week  in  the  French  language,  can  carry  on  a 
comfortable  conversation  under  ordinary  conditions  and  circum- 
stances with  the  mastery  of  a  vocabulary  of  at  least  a  thousand 
words.  On  the  other  hand,  many  an  American  college  graduate 
who  has  studied  French  for  years  is  as  awkward  and  as  nonplussed 
in  a  Paris  drawing  room  as  he  would  be  in  the  driver's  seat  of  an 
airplane." 

In  a  letter  (May  2d,  1919)  Dr.  Butler  added: 

"What  I  want  modern  language  teachers  to  do  is  to  teach 
American  boys  and  giils  how  to  read,  write,  speak  and  understand 
the  particular  foreign  language  in  which  they  are  giving  instruc- 
tion, and  through  that  attainment  to  have  some  comprehension  of 
the  people  :.  ad  the  civilization  which  the  foreign  language  reflects, 

*A  paper  read  at  the  General  Session  of  the  Association  of  Modern  Language 
Teachers  of  the  Central  West  and  South,  at  Chicago,  May  10th,  1919. 


SOUTHERN  BRANCH, 

iiNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA, 

ULBr?ARy, 

L.OS  ANGELtS.  CALIr. 


2  MODERN  LANGUAGE  JOURNAL 

and  to  leave  off  trying  to  make  specialists  or  linguistic  experts 
out  of  the  great  body  of  school  and  college  students  who  would  like 
to  learn  one  or  more  of  the  modern  European  languages." 

Copies  of  the  statement  made  by  President  Butler  in  the  Educa- 
tional Review,  together  with  the  following  hypothetical  statement 
which  was  prepared  by  the  writer  of  this  article,  were  sent  to  a 
number  of  prominent  professors  of  Romance  Languages: 

"It  has  occurred  to  me  that  it  might  be  well  to  submit  the 
causes  that  most  college  teachers  of  modern  languages  give  for  not 
succeeding  in  teaching  their  students  to  speak  the  language  better 
than  they  do.  In  most  colleges  and  universities,  first  and  second 
year  French  are  given  in  classes  that  meet  only  three  times  a 
week.  In  elementary  work  the  teacher  can  scarcely  avoid  speaking 
to  the  class  at  least  one-half  of  the  time.  So  far  as  I  am  able  to 
ascertain  the  average  college  class  throughout  the  country  has 
about  twenty-five  students  and  the  average  time  given  to  a  lesson 
is  fifty  minutes. 

"When  classes  meet  three  times  a  week,  if  the  teacher  speaks 
one-half  of  the  time  and  the  students  speak  during  the  other  half, 
each  student  has  one  minute  each  day  or  three  minutes  a  week, 
which  would  amount  to  a  total  of  about  two  hours'  practice  in 
speaking  French  during  the  year.  .  . 

"The  other  handicap  to  which  reference  is  commonly  made  is 
that  most  college  students  never  expect  to  visit  any  place  where  the 
foreign  language  is  spoken.  Consequently,  they  are  primarily 
interested  in  learning  to  read  the  language.  Here  it  is  again  the 
environment  against  which  the  teacher  struggles. 

"Some  of  us  believe  that  the  reform  in  teaching  modern 
languages  must  first  be  made  in  the  secondary  schools.  .  .  There 
are,  however,  in  practically  every  college  and  university  a  chosen 
few  that  would  be  willing  to  work  hard  enough  to  learn  to  speak  the 
language  well  if  they  had  the  opportunity  to  do  so." 

The  letters  that  were  received  in  reply  are  of  great  interest  and 
offer  many  constructive  suggestions.  Unfortunately  only  the 
following  extracts  can  be  given: 

"We  are  at  one  in  the  view  that  the  teaching  of  modern  lang- 
uages should  be  better  and  more  effective  than  it  now  is,  and  must 
be  made  so.  The  first  and  most  pressing  measure  to  this  end  is  to 
establish  a  scale  of  salaries  which  will  attract  capable  men  and 
women  to  enter  the  field.  .  .  . 

"My  own  observation  since  coming  to  France  is  far  from 
bearing  out  the  statement  I  am  told  that  President  Butler  made 
that  200,000  American  young  men,  after  six  months  of  military 
activity  in  France  and  three  or  four  hours  of  instruction  a  week  in 
the  French  language,  can  carry  on  a  comfortable  conversation 


ARE  MODERN  LA  NGUA  GE  TEA  CUING  METHODS  WRONG  3 

under  ordinary  conditions  and  circumstances  with  the  mastery  of  a 
vocabulary  of  at  least  a  thousand  words.  If  this  is  the  case 
such  men  should  assuredly  have  had  the  preference  in  assignments 
for  study  in  the  French  Universities,  and  not  a  single  case  of  the 
sort  exists  among  the  300  members  of  the  School  Detachment  of 
the  University  of  Bordeaux.  The  only  men  of  such  facility  as  that 
above  mentioned  fall  into  one  of  two  classes:  (1)  Men  who  have 
already  had  college  courses  in  French  in  the  States — this  is  by  far 
the  larger  class  of  the  two;  and  (2)  a  very  few  scattered  individuals 
who  have  been  billeted  in  French  families  and  have  passed  sub- 
stantially every  moment  of  the  time  that  was  free  from  military 
duties  in  the  study  and  practice  of  French,  and  in  no  one  of  these 
cases  was  the  sojourn  by  any  means  so  short  as  six  months." 

Edward  C.  Armstrong,  Princeton  University. 

"...  I  long  since  decided  that  the  only  way  in  which  we  could 
succeed  in  getting  some  students  to  learn  to  speak  French  accepta- 
bly, was  to  pick  out  those  who  showed  special  fitness,  and  to  give 
them  intensive  training.  With  this  object  in  view,  I  kept  careful 
watch  on  the  first  year  classes,  and  the  second  year  I  made  up  a 
class  with  those  students  who  had  shown  that  they  could  acquire 
a  good  pronunciation  and  were  eager  to  become  proficient  in 
speaking  the  language.  This  second  year  class  we  call  the  "Drama 
class."  With  them  we  make  a  special  study  of  plays,  preferably 
comedies.  The  class  never  has  more  than  20  students.  It  is  in 
charge  of  an  instructor,  who  is  interested  in  dramatics  and  posses- 
ses a  certain  amount  of  dramatic  ability.  Scenes  of  comedies  are 
taken  up,  learned  and  acted  out  in  class.  No  English  is  spoken. 
The  dramatic  study  is  occasionally  varied  by  the  study  of  poems 
which  are  recited  with  the  proper  expression.  From  this  class,  the 
best  elements  are  selected  by  competition  for  the  public  perform- 
ance of  a  play  at  the  end  of  the  year.  .  .  . 

*T  spent  six  months  in  France,  and  I  made  it  a  point  to  enquire 
of  soldiers  and  officers  how  much  French  they  had  learned  during 
that  time.  I  must  have  been  particularly  unfortunate,  for  I  have 
never  met  any  that  had  learned  to  speak  it  'comfortably.'  Some 
officers  used  a  kind  of  pidgeon  French  supplemented  by  copious 
gesticulation.  As  the  French  are  an  intelligent  race,  they  generally 
managed  to  catch  on.  ..." 

J.  L.  BoRGERHOFF,  Westem  Reserve  University. 

"The  teaching  of  modern  languages  under  the  conditions  that 
prevail  among  us  is  just  about  as  much  impeached  by  the  reflexion 
that  'many  an  American  college  graduate  who  has  studied  French 
for  years  is  as  awkward  and  as  nonplussed  in  a  Paris  drawing  room 
as  he  would  be  in  the  driver's  seat  of  an  airplane,'  as  the  teaching  of 
arithmetic  would  be  impeached  by  the  observation  that  our  boys 


4  MODERN  LANGUAGE  JOURNAL 

who  have  been  through  the  years  of  arithmetic  of  the  elementary 
school  would  be  about  as  intelligent  listeners  in  a  conference  of 
insurance  actuaries  as  they  would  be  in  a  congress  of  esperan- 
tists.  .  .  . 

"I  think  our  critics  must  be  forced  to  meet  the  issues  properly 
defined.  ...  If  they  press  us  to  adopt  a  certain  'modern,' 
'reformed,'  'up  to  date'  method,  let  us  ask  them  whether  they  deem 
it  equally  applicable  in  the  seventh  grade,  in  the  ninth  grade,  in 
the  Freshman  year,  and  in  the  Junior  year  of  the  college  or  univer- 
sity. If  our  critics  insist  on  'practical'  results,  then  they  must  get 
us  a  six  year  course,  at  least,  before  they  criticise.  .  .  ." 

Arthur  G.  Canfield,  University  of  Michigan. 

"Did  our  courses  in  chemistry  and  physics  train  men  to  serve 
the  army  at  once  in  making  powder  and  calculating  high-angle 
fire?  .  .  .  Off  hand  I  should  say  that  our  American  class  work 
ought  to  include  better  training  in  pronouncing  according  to 
phonetic  methods,  more  oral  drill  (chorus  work  makes  it  possible 
to  increase  the  amount  of  actual  speaking  that  each  man  gets), 
and  that  'free  reproduction'  of  reading  material  affords  excellent 
practice  in  using  the  language  as  well  as  in  reading  without  trans- 
lation. .  .  .  Several  of  my  old  students  became  interpreters  in 
the  army,  and  others  found  themselves  able  to  speak  French  the 
moment  they  got  across.  .  .  ." 

Philip  H.  Churchman,  Clark  University. 

"I  spent  some  five  months  in  France  and  was  struck  with  the 
very  small  amount  of  French  that  our  men  learned  even  under 
unusually  favorable  conditions.  It  proved  to  me  that  our  old 
shibboleth  about  picking  up  the  language  in  a  few  months  when 
among  the  people,  is  about  as  true  as  most  generalities.  Unless,  the 
men  had  a  real  desire  to  learn  it  and  took  some  trouble  to  do  so, 
their  progress  was  very  small,  especially  in  cases  where  they  had 
had  no  previous  French.  I  should  really  like  to  know  what  Presi- 
dent Butler  means  by  the  'best'  authority  and  where  this  authority 
got  his  very  precise  facts  as  to  the  'comfortable'  conversation,  and 
the  'vocabulary  of  a  thousand  words.' 

"The  number  of  students  of  French  in  the  various  camps  in 
France  has  been  estimated  at  200,000.  My  own  observation, 
made  on  the  occasion  of  visits  to  some  of  the  camps,  confirmed  me 
in  the  belief  that  this  was  a  pure  guess,  and  that  even  the  very 
much  smaller  number  of  soldiers  in  the  French  classes  attended 
so  irregularly  and  for  such  brief  periods  of  time  that  nothing  like 
the  'comfortable'  conversational  ability  of  which  Mr.  Butler 
speaks,  was  attained.  .  ,  ." 

A.  Coleman,  University  oj  Chicago. 

"Like  many  other  teachers  of  French,  I  have  noticed  Dr. 
Butler's  remark  upon  the  failure  of  our  schools  and  colleges  to 


ARE  MODERN  LANGUAGE  TEACHING  METHODS  WRONG  5 

turn  out  students  able  to  speak  and  write  with  ease  and  correctness. 
Dr.  Butler  attributes  the  failure  to  wrong  methods. 

"To  my  mind,  the  failure,  which  is  by  no  means  always  as 
complete  as  his  words  appear  to  imply,  is  due  not  so  much  to 
wrong  methods  as  to  lack  of  time,  excessively  large  classes,  and 
lack  of  a  real  incentive  to  learn.  Our  courses  in  philosophy  are 
not  more  successful  in  turning  out  philosophers,  nor  our  courses  in 
poetry  in  turning  out  poets,  at  any  rate,  not  usually.   .   . 

"Our  modern  elementary  schools,  it  seems  to  me,  develop 
passivity  in  the  more  intellectual  subjects,  or  at  best,  receptivity. 
Only  in  the  teacher  are  activity  and  energy  called  for.  His 
'methods'  are  periodically  under  suspicion.  Our  high  school 
pupils  do  not  know  that  one  of  the  great  aims  of  education  is  to 
overcome  difficulties.  The  teacher  is  required  to  find  'methods' 
to  make  the  difficulties  disappear.  Difficulties,  however,  cannot  be 
made  to  disappear.   .  .   . 

"Methods  may  be  important.  Far  more  important  are  small 
classes,  gifted  pupils,  and  an  effective  stimulus." 

C.  A.  Downer,  College  of  City  of  New  York. 

"...  As  regards  our  college  work  in  modern  foreign  lang- 
uages a  great  mistake,  leading  to  a  great  economic  waste  in  our 
teaching,  is  made  through  our  failure  to  recognize  the  fact  that  no 
small  proportion  of  our  students  are  linguistic  morons.  That  they 
are  such  is  discernible  already  in  their  preparatory  school  stage, 
where  great  difficulty  is  encountered  in  equipping  such  students 
with  even  the  modicum  of  French,  etc.,  requisite  for  a  bare  pass 
mark  in  the  Entrance  Examinations.  Why  should  there  be 
continued  effort  of  a  linguistic  sort  with  respect  to  such  persons  in 
college?   .   .  . 

"P'or  fit  students  I  believe  that  a  great  advantage  is  gained  by 
the  adoption,  in  at  least  the  first  year  of  college  life,  of  intensive 
courses  meeting  at  least  five  times  a  week. 

"In  so  far  as  purely  practical  considerations  are  concerned  there 
is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  we  can  produce  far  more  beneficial 
results  through  the  establishment  of  a  greater  number  of  set 
courses  in  conversation  and  composition  in  which  the  instruction 
is  limited  to  sections  of  not  more  than  a  dozen  to  fifteen  students 
each.  The  chief  issue  is  the  procuring  of  the  funds  necessary  for 
so  costly  a  form  of  training  as  this  is." 

J.  D.  M.  Ford,  Harvard  University, 

"...  It  is  obvious  that  our  somewhat  antiquated  methods  of 
teaching  will  have  to  be  modified  in  accordance  with  future  require- 
ments, while,  at  the  same  time,  care  should  be  taken  not  to  yield 
too  much  to  radical  and  showy  systems,  most  of  which  only  tend  to 
produce  unstable  and  insufficient  results.  ...  In  the  elementary 
and  intermediate  courses  the  reform  that  will  probably  obtain  is 


6  MODERN  LANGUAGE  JOURNAL     ■ 

the  following:  more  frequent  sessions  of  classes  each  week.  These 
extra  hours  of  recitation  need  require  no  additional  preparation  on 
the  part  of  the  student.  They  should  be  merely  laboratory  hours 
for  practising  what  has  already  been  acquired  in  the  class-room. 
Extra  credit  should  be  given  for  such  work.  .  .  " 

J.  L.  Gerig,  Columbia  University. 

"...  In  so  far  as  President  Butler's  criticism  is  aimed  at  the 
slight  oral  instruction  that  has  been  offered  in  modern  language  it 
has  a  basis  of  justice  and  expresses  the  feeling  of  the  average  person 
with  regard  to  his  foreign  language  training.  It  is  the  duty  of 
modern  language  teachers  seriously  to  consider  this  rather  wide- 
spread criticism  and  see  if  there  is  not  some  means  of  adequately 
meeting  it. 

"It  is  true  that  we  can  not  teach  students  to  speak  a  language 
under  the  conditions  of  our  class  rooms,  if  by  speaking  we  under- 
stand the  acquisition  of  a  language  in  a  degree  at  all  comparable  to 
our  possession  of  our  mother  tongue.  We  can,  however,  and  should 
emphasize  the  spoken  and  aural  sides  of  our  work  in  such  a  way 
that  our  students  may  feel  at  the  end  of  say  two  years  of  work  that 
they  are  able  to  express  themselves  simply  in  the  language  studied 
and  to  understand  it  when  spoken  under  conditions  that  are  not 
too  difhcult.  .  .  " 

Edgar  S.  Ingraham,  The  Ohio  State  University. 

"President  Butler  has  certainly  been  misinformed  when  he 
makes  the  statement  in  the  January  number  of  the  Educational 
Review.  During  eleven  months  of  1918  I  lived  in  the  army  zone 
in  France,  where  I  saw  much  of  American  soldiers.  I  feel  sure  that 
of  the  1,015,000  men  we  had  in  France  on  July  1st,  1918,  there 
were  comparatively  few,  certainly  not  one  in  five,  who  studied 
French  three  or  four  hours  a  week  and  far  fewer  who  attained  much 
proficiency  in  it.  The  thing  that  struck  me  especially  in  the  A.  E. 
F.  was  its  vast  ignorance  of  French,  the  men's  inability  to  pro- 
nounce, or  remember,  the  names  even  of  towns  in  which  they  were 
billeted.  A  number  of  men  learned,  of  course,  enough  French  to 
procure  the  necessities  of  life  for  themselves  and  their  comrades, 
to  find  their  way  on  the  road  or  in  a  shop,  or  to  venture  a  few 
phrases  about  their  health  or  the  weather  but  beyond  this  I  found 
in  them  little  ability  to  talk  French.  .  .  . 

"Let  me  suggest  the  following  ways  of  securing  improvement: 

1.  Greater  emphasis  in  graduate  schools  on  ability  to  speak 
and  write  the  foreign  language  studied. 

2.  More  frequent  opportunities  for  teachers  and  graduate 
students  to  travel  and  study  abroad. 

3.  Smaller  classes  and  a  larger  number  of  hours  a  week  for 
each  class. 


ARE  MODERN  LANGUAGE  TEACHING  METHODS  WRONG  7 

4.  Or2;anizing  special  classes  for  the  most  proficient  students. 

5.  Bringing  foreign  students  into  our  institutions,  organizing 
clubs  and  tables  where  the  foreign  language  is  spoken,  and  having 
lectures  given  by  foreigners." 

H.  Carrington  Lancaster,  Jo/ms  Hopkins. 

"The  general  lack  of  success  of  which  President  Butler  speaks 
is  of  course  partly  due  to  large  classes.  No  class  in  a  modern 
language  (unless  it  is  an  advanced  class  in  literature)  should  con- 
sist of  more  than  ten  students.  Every  student  added  to  the  ten 
makes  teaching  increasingly  difficult,  and  I  should  say  it  is  impos- 
sible to  achieve  satisfactory  results  with  a  class  of  more  than 
twenty. 

"I  do  not  believe,  however,  that  small  classes  alone  would  bring 
about  the  results  desired  by  President  Butler.  I  believe  he  is 
right  in  saying  that  there  is  something  wrong  in  our  method.  I 
believe  that  many  of  us  make  the  mistake  of  not  insisting  stub- 
bornly and  uncompromisingly  (1)  on  oral  preparation  of  lessons, 
and  (2)  on  grammar.  .  . 

"I  believe  that  the  future  of  modern  language  teaching  depends 
on  these  two  things:  upon  making  our  students  study  out  loud 
and  upon  making  them  learn  grammar.  Whether  these  things 
be  done  by  the  use  of  low  marks  or  by  the  sheer  persuasive  ability 
of  an  inspiring  teacher — they  must  be  done.  Otherwise  modern 
languages  will  go  the  way  of  the  classics." 

F.  B.  LuQUiENS,  Yale  University. 

"Ample  time  should  be  devoted  to  practical  and  conversational 
worlc  in  the  secondary  schools  without,  however,  curtailing  the 
systematic  grammatical  drill. 

"In  the  case  of  beginners'  courses  in  the  College,  the  ideal  class 
would  consist  of  ten  or  twelve  students  meeting  five  hours  a  week. 
In  view  of  the  greatly  increased  cost  of  conducting  such  classes 
and  the  further  fact  that  our  elective  system  makes  it  difficult  to 
give  full  time  and  credit  for  such  courses,  I  should  suggest  the 
following  plan : 

"Three  hour  classes  with  a  maximum  enrolment  of  twenty 
students;  an  additional  hour  for  exclusively  oral  and  practical 
drill  based  on  the  regular  work  of  the  class  room,  with  the  students 
divided  into  groups  of  six  or  eight.  This  additional  hour  should  be 
regarded  as  parallel  to  the  laboratory  hours  of  the  natural  sciences 
and  should  be  a  required  part  of  the  course.  The  student  should 
receive  no  additional  credit  for  the  'laboratory  hour'  or,  at  most, 
only  a  fractional  credit.   .   . 

"Wherever  possible,  and  especially  in  beginning  and  inter- 
mediate classes  the  foreign  language  should  be  the  language  of  the 
class  room.  To  spend  the  time  of  advanced  classes  in  acquiring 
facility  in  conversation  or  skill  in  purely  commercial  branches,  must 


8  MODERN  LANGUAGE  JOURNAL 

result  in  lowering  our  educational  standard  for  collegiate  instruction 
in  modern  languages.  Additional  facility  in  conversation  is  an 
extra-curriculum  problem  which  the  intelligent  student  can  solve 
in  various  ways." 

C.  Carroll  Marden,  Princeton  University. 

"Let  us  make  a  selection  of  students  and  try  to  teach  these  to 
'speak.'  At  the  same  time,  the  more  important  matter  is  the 
schools.  .  . 

"As  to  'special'  classes  in  college  for  'speakers,'  I  also  agree — in 
principle.  At  the  same  time  I  am  in  favor  of  using  this  device  only 
as  a  make-shift  until  the  schools  realize  that  they,  not  the  colleges, 
are  the  places  to  teach  students  to  speak  a  language — our  function 
being  quite  another. 

"I  hardly  believe  President  Butler  can  have  informed  himself 
thoroly  on  the  matter." 

Wm.  a.  Nitze,  University  of  Chicago. 

"...  I  believe  that  President  Butler  is  right  in  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  American  college  students,  who  have  been 
trained  solely  by  the  old  translation  method,  are  quite  unable  to 
handle  the  language  as  an  instrument  of  conversation.  I  think  I 
should  go  somewhat  further  than  he  in  believing  that  they  cannot 
even  read  the  language  adequately  or  with  a  grasp  of  its  inner 
meaning.  I  do  not  believe,  however,  that  he  is  correct  in  supposing 
that  at  least  200,000  American  young  men,  after  six  months  of 
military  activity  in  France,  and  three  or  four  hours  of  instruction 
a  week  in  the  French  language,  can  carry  on  a  comfortable  con- 
versation. ..." 

Everett  W.  Olmsted,  University  of  Minnesota. 

"...  All  our  elementary  classes  meet  five  times  a  week. 
Every  instructor  must  speak  the  language  readily  and  well. 
These  two  conditions  are  merely  preparatory  to  attacking  the 
problem.  The  next  thing  is  to  inspire  in  the  students  at  the  outset 
the  desire  to  learn  to  speak.  With  Spanish,  I  find  that  to  be 
easier  than  used  to  be  the  case  when  I  taught  French.  We  begin 
by  talking  Spanish  to  them  from  the  first  day.  .  .  .  We  are  just 
as  rigid  in  our  insistence  that  the  grammar  should  be  accurately 
learned  as  the  most  reactionary  of  the  classicists.   .   . 

"We  make,  however,  a  somewhat  different  use  of  reading 
material  and  composition  than  is  usual  under  the  traditional  sys- 
tem. The  composition  is  for  the  most  part  done  orally.  That  is, 
the  classroom  presentation  of  it  is  oral:  the  student  writes  the 
lesson  in  preparation.  The  reading  material  is  read;  not,  except 
where  understanding  demands  it,  translated.  Our  theory  regard- 
ing the  nature  of  this  material  is  thai  it  should  be  both  interesting 
and  easy,  and  that  the  class  should  cover  a  comparatively  large 


A  RE  MODERN  LA  NGUA  GE  TEA  CIIING  METHODS  WRONG  9 

amount  of  it.  Even  in  the  first  semester  we  'discuss'  the  reading. 
We  make  it  evident  to  the  students  that  in  the  elementary  work 
the  thing  is  to  talk.  .  . 

"Beginning  with  the  second  year  we  have  a  course  in  conversa- 
tion, which  meets  five  times  a  week  and  gives  but  three  hours' 
credit.  This  course  is  required  of  all  students  majoring  in  the 
subject  and  is,  of  course,  taught  by  a  Spaniard." 

Arthur  L.  Owen,  University  of  Kansas. 

"The  following  about  represents  our  experience  here,  a  State 
Institution  with  a  large  enrollment  in  the  Romance  languages. 

(1)  Our  salaries  do  not  attract  the  best  teachers  and  we  cannot 
honestly  urge  able  and  gifted  men  to  go  into  the  profession  of 
teaching  unless  they  have  private  means. 

(2)  Capable  and  adaptable  foreigners,  fitted  to  teach  our 
courses  in  composition  and  conversation,  do  not  grow  on  every 
bush;  those  whom  we  secure  do  not  always  understand  the  Ameri- 
can student. 

(3)  Our  elementary  sections  have  ranged  from  35  (a  minimum) 
to  60  students;  no  teacher  however  competent  can  reach  all 
members  of  such  a  class.  There  are  'never'  any  funds  available 
for  all  the  instructors  necessary. 

(4)  A  very  small  percentage  (hardly  more  than  five  to  ten 
per  cent)  begins  a  foreign  language  with  the  object  of  making 
use  of  it  in  foreign  parts.  Most  students  desire  merely  a  reading 
knowledge.   .  .   " 

R.  ScHEViLL,  University  of  California. 

"...  I  doubt  exceedingly  the  statement  that  200,000  of  our 
soldiers  have  learned  to  speak  French  comfortably.  None  of  the 
considerable  number  I  have  seen  returned  is  so  fortunate.   .   . 

"However,  the  main  point  is  that  speaking  and  writing  the 
language  is  not  the  chief  aim  for  the  great  number  of  our  college 
students.  If  this  were  the  chief  benefit  to  be  derived,  most  of  them 
should  study  something  else,  for  they  will  never  need  it.  Our 
instruction  is  usually  aimed  at  the  chief  value,  reading.  Speaking 
is  of  large  importance  to  the  majority  only  to  the  extent  that  it 
contributes  by  interesting  and  stimulating. 

"There  is  a  very  important  minority  who  need  to  learn  to 
speak  and  write  the  language.  For  these  special  classes  and  train- 
ing should  be  provided.  We  give  small  classes  (10-15)  in  conversa- 
tion and  composition,  and  they  do  learn  to  speak  the  language 
reasonably  well.  Also  there  are  other  possibilities.  One  of  these 
we  are  now  using  here  with  remarkable  success.  This  is  our  French 
House,  in  which  French  only  is  spoken,  at  tables  and  at  all  times. 
The  advantage  is  that  it  makes  use  of  what  would  otherwise  be  lost 
time  for  the  student.  We  keep  several  French  natives  in  the  house, 
and  thirty  to  forty  of  our  students.    These  students  have  made  a 


10  MODERN  LANGUAGE  JOURNAL 

progress  in  speaking  French  fairly  comparable  to  what  they  would 
make  in  a  similar  amount  of  time  in  a  French-speaking  community, 
and  I  dare  risk  the  assertion  that  they  in  general  speak  the  language 
better  and  more  readily  than  do  any  thirty  who  can  be  picked  out 
of  President  Butler's  200,000  soldiers." 

Hugh  A.  Smith,  University  of  Wisconsin. 

"...  The  conversational  ability  of  our  students  presents  no 
'sorry  commentary.'  We  cannot  avoid  teaching  our  students  how 
to  read  the  foreign  language.  Requirements  in  the  professional 
schools — the  school  of  medicine,  for  example — demand  a  reading 
knowledge;  and  there  are  other  good  reasons  for  exacting  a  reading 
ability  in  the  foreign  languages.   .   . 

"I  have  just  conducted  a  survey  in  a  second-semester  Spanish 
class  on  the  difficulties  offered  by  conversation  in  Spanish.  The 
answers  by  the  students  are  what  I  expected:  lack  of  opportunity 
in  class,  lack  of  time  outside  of  class  because  of  other  university 
demands,  the  necessity  of  putting  the  language  aside  from  one's 
thoughts  on  leaving  the  class  to  go  into  another  class, — perhaps 
into  a  different  foreign-language  class,  lack  of  self-confidence 
because  of  the  size  of  the  class,  the  too  rapid  reading  of  texts, 
lack  of  concentration,  lack  of  Spanish  environment,  lack  of  mental 
agility  in  language-study,  lack  of  verbal  memory.  The  problem  is 
by  no  means  the  simple  thing  that  it  appears  to  be. 

"It  would  pay  an  experimental  psychologist  to  study  student 
mentality  under  class-room  conditions  in  the  languages.  He  would 
probably  discover  an  unusually  large  number  of  intellectually 
alert  students  whom  it  is  nothing  short  of  criminal  to  force  into 
language  straight-jackets.  He  might  find  it  necessary  to  advise 
that  such  students  not  only  be  exempted  from  further  language 
muddling  after  the  first  semester,  but  that  the  ordeal  of  the  first 
semester  be  not  counted  against  them,  as  manifestly  unfair.   .   .   " 

J.  Warshaw,  University  of  Nebraska. 

"...  It  is  natural  that  such  drastic  criticism  as  that  made  by 
President  Butler  should  come  from  one  extra  niuros,  who  knows 
little  of  the  difficulties  of  the  situation.  You  cannot  put  a  quart  of 
water  into  a  pint  pot,  and  there  is  no  use  in  claiming  that  it  can  be 
done.  As  long  as  our  classes  in  modern  languages  meet  three  times 
a  week  in  one  hour  sessions  it  is  idle  to  talk  of  any  such  progress 
as  President  Butler  seems  to  expect. 

"As  to  the  statement  that  'at  least  200,000  American  young 
men,  who,  after  six  months  of  military  activity  and  three  or  four 
hours  of  instruction  a  week  in  the  French  language,  can  carry  on  a 
comfortable  conversation  under  ordinary  conditions  and  circum- 
stances,' etc.,  we  may  well  be  sceptical.  During  a  recent  sojourn 
in  France,  I  met  no  young  American  of  whom  this  is  literally 


ARE  MODERN  LANGUAGE  TEACHING  METHODS  WRONG         11 

true,  altho  I  met  some  who  could  talk  a  little  about  certain  things." 

Raymond  Weeks,  Columbia  University. 

"The  possible  values  of  knowledge  of  a  modern  foreign  language 
are  of  four  types:  first,  values  resulting  from  ability  to  understand 
the  language  as  written;  second,  values  resulting  from  ability  to 
understand  the  language  as  spoken;  third,  ability  to  speak  the 
language;  fourth,  ability  to  write  the  language. 

"The  values  of  the  first  type  are  in  themselves  by  far  the 
greatest,  for  they  include  the  potential  knowledge  of  all  the 
thought  of  the  country  in  question,  whether  philosophic,  religious, 
social,  political,  literary,  or  scientific,  which  that  country  has  felt 
worth  preserving.   .   . 

"The  values  of  the  second  and  third  types  concern  only  those 
students  who  will  visit  the  foreign  country  or  will  have  to  deal  in 
some  way  with  foreigners,  who,  on  coming  to  this  country,  speak  the 
language  of  the  country  from  which  they  come.  The  number  of 
students  concerned  with  these  values  is  larger  now  than  previously, 
but  I  do  not  believe  that  more  than  10  per  cent  of  the  students  are 
really  now  so  concerned.  Furthermore,  it  is  utterly  impossible 
under  American  school  and  college  conditions  to  give  these  values 
to  more  than  a  very  small  proportion  of  students  enrolled  in  ordin- 
ary language  classes.  It  should  be  recognized  that  the  ability  to 
understand  the  foreign  language  when  spoken  is  distinctly  more 
valuable  and  distinctly  easier  to  teach  than  the  ability  to  speak  the 
foreign  language.  ...  So  far  as  American  schools  and  colleges 
are  concerned,  the  endeavor  really  to  give  the  ability  to  understand 
and  to  speak  should  be  made  not  in  the  ordinary  classes,  but  in 
special  limited  classes  in  which  intensive  laboratory  conditions 
should  be  approximated  as  closely  as  possible.   .   .   " 

Ernest  H.  Wilkins,  University  of  Chicago. 

"...  Many  individuals  are  quite  lacking  in  linguistic 
ability.  Scientific  tests  devised  to  eliminate  those  thus  handi- 
capped should  be  instituted  in  both  high  school  and  college. 

"Modern  language  classes  are  organized  in  the  large  city  sys- 
tems with  about  twice  as  many  pupils  in  the  class  as  there  should 
be.  For  instance,  in  New  York  City  high  schools  it  is  no  uncom- 
mon thing  to  find  an  attendance  of  40  to  50  in  beginning  classes, 
the  very  type  of  class  in  which  the  number  should  be  smallest. 

"Modern  language  teachers  are  too  often  lacking  themselves  in 
oral  facility.  Now  that  the  war  is  over,  these  teachers  should 
study  abroad  (especially  teachers  of  French  and  Spanish).  To 
make  this  possible,  the  sabbatical  year  with  at  least  half-pay  should 
be  granted  by  Boards  of  Education  to  all  such  teachers. 

"I  am  convinced  that  the  high  schools  do  more  to  secure  oral 
and  aural  facility  in  French  and  Spanish  than  do  the  colleges.  This 
is  due  in  part  to  the  greater  impressionableness  of  the  minds  of  the 


12  MODERN  LA  NGUA  GE  JO  URN  A  L 

younger  students  of  the  high  schools  and  in  part  to  the  fact  that 
the  high  schools  deliberately  aim  to  train  tongue  and  ear,  as  well  as 
the  eye  of  the  student.  .  .   " 

Lawrence  A.  Wilkins,  Acting  Director  of  Modern  Languages  in 
High  Schools,  New  York  City. 

The  statements  given  above  make  clear  the  general  belief  that 
some  reforms  are  needed  in  modern  language  instruction,  but  that 
as  a  whole  the  present  conditions  are  not  nearly  so  bad  as  our 
critics  would  have  us  believe.  There  seems  also  to  be  a  wide- 
spread opinion — which,  however,  is  not  held  by  all — that  the 
primary  aim  of  language  instruction  in  colleges  and  universities 
is  cultural  and  that  the  ability  to  speak  the  foreign  languages  must 
be  acquired  either  in  the  secondary  schools  or  extra  muros.  It  is 
affirmed  that  beginners'  French  or  Spanish  is  too  elementary  a 
subject  to  have  a  place  in  a  college,  and  that,  moreover,  the  average 
college  student  is  too  old  to  begin  to  learn  to  speak  a  foreign 
language  to  advantage. 

Although  there  is  much  truth  in  this  affirmation,  the  conditions 
are  such  in  our  general  educational  system  that  the  elementary 
courses  in  modern  languages  can  not  be  discontinued  at  the  present 
time  in  most  colleges  and  universities,  and  certainly  not  in  the 
State  universities.  Students  come  up  from  the  high  schools  with 
four  years  of  Latin  and  they  wish  to  take  French,  or  they  have  had 
French  or  German  and  they  wish  to  begin  Spanish.  This  demand 
for  beginners'  courses  in  college  must  be  met. 

The  real  problem  then  is:  What  can  we  do  for  the  students  who 
begin  a  modern  foreign  language  in  college?  If  the  statements 
made  in  this  "Symposium"  are  typical — and  I  believe  they  are — 
we  are  beginning  to  take  the  position  that  students  who  comm.ence 
a  foreign  language  in  college  should  be  separated  into  two  groups: 
those  who  desire  primarily  a  reading  knowledge  of  the  language, 
and  those  who  wish  to  speak  and  write  it  as  well. 

If  the  beginners  are  divided  into  two  groups,  should  the  separa- 
tion be  made  at  first  with  the  privilege  of  shifting  later,  or  should 
there  be  a  general  course  for  a  semester  and  then  make  the  separa- 
tion?   Only  experience  will  tell  which  is  better. 

If  the  separation  is  made  at  the  end  of  the  first  semester — or  the 
first  quarter  in  those  universities  that  have  the  quarter  system — 
it  might  be  wise  to  excuse,  at  this  time,  from  all  linguistic  require- 
ments those  students  who  give  evidence  of  being  "quite  lacking  in 
linguistic  ability,"  "hopelessly  unfit,"  tone-deaf,  or  "linguistic 
morons."  This  elimination  should  be  made  by  a  committee,  and 
it  should  be  based  either  on  the  student's  record  in  all  subjects, 
supplemented  by  personal  interviews,  or  on  scientific  tests. 


ARE  MODERN  LANGUAGE  TEACHING  METHODS  WRONG         13 

The  students  who  are  to  continue  the  language  would  then  be 
separated  into  two  groups.  The  reading  courses  would  be  con- 
ducted largely  in  English  and  the  emphasis  would  be  put  on 
translation.  It  would  be  the  purpose  of  the  course  to  teach  the 
students  to  read  and  understand  the  written  language  and  to 
pronounce  it  intelligibly.  There  would  be  no  pretence  whatever 
of  teaching  these  students  to  speak  the  language  easily  and  cor- 
rectly. 

The  second  group  would  consist  of  those  students  who  wish  to 
learn  to  speak  and  write  the  language  and  are  willing  to  make  the 
necessary  effort.  The  plans  suggested  for  the  conduct  of  these 
courses  differ,  but  they  all  presuppose  capable,  well  trained 
teachers  and  wherever  possible  the  use  of  the  spoken  language  in 
the  classroom. 

Two  general  plans  have  been  suggested  for  teaching  the 
students  to  speak  the  language.  One  plan  would  be  to  organize 
the  students  in  groups  of  twelve  or  fifteen  and  give  them  live 
times  a  week  intensive  work  with  much  oral  drill.  The  other  plan 
would  be  to  organize  "special  limited  classes  in  which  intensive 
laboratory  conditions  should  be  approximated  as  closely  as 
possible."  The  enrollment  would  be  limited  to  twenty,  or  twenty- 
five.  The  entire  class  would  meet  with  the  instructor  three  times 
a  week.  Twice  a  week  the  class  would  meet  in  groups  of  five  or 
six,  with  tutors,  for  "exclusively  oral  and  practical  drill  based  on 
the  regular  work  of  the  classroom." 

Opinion  differs  as  to  whether  the  college  credit  for  these 
courses  should  be  three,  four,  or  five  hours. 

The  "laboratory  system"  offers  interesting  possibilities.  The 
chief  difficulty  would  be  to  find  tutors  and  rooms.  If  funds  were 
available  to  engage  the  services  of  competent  tutors,  and  if  rooms 
were  available,  the  "laboratory  system"  would  be  ideal. 

Most  of  the  students  who  enroll  in  the  advanced  courses  in 
philology  and  literature  would  come,  of  course,  from  these  intensive 
and   laboratory   courses. 

Our  "Symposium"  has  also  made  evident  a  rather  general 
opinion  that,  in  addition  to  class  work,  students  need  the  practice 
and  the  stimulus  that  come  from  extra-curriculum  opportunities 
to  speak  and  hear  the  foreign  language.  These  may  be  had  to  some 
extent  in  clubs,  at  tables,  and  probably  best  of  all — at  least  for 
the  chosen  few— in  such  organizations  as  the  Maison  Frangaise  at 
Columbia  University  and  the  French  House  at  the  University  of 
Wisconsin. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  ease  our  conscience  somewhat  to  learn 
that  the  evidence  available  shows  that,  for  the  most  part,  our  sol- 
diers in  France  learned  little  French  over  there.  I  am  sorry  they 
did  not  learn  more. 

Indiana  University. 

49843 


v/^a3AIN(l-3WV 


•^^•Aavjian-^'v>      ^<?Aavaaniv> 


"^uyiJDNVSOl^^        V/ia3AIN(llUV 


^^0JI1V3-J0=^ 
AcOFCAtlFO/?^ 


s^lOSANCElfXx 


13\\V 


CO 

so 

> 


~P       o 

-n         «— ' 


-5^lUBRARYQ^        ^ILIBRARYO^ 


%jnvD-jo'^     %ojnv3JO'^ 


^^WEUNIVER%       ^10SANCEI%  ^OF-CAUFO/?^. 

^  University  of  California 

S  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

^'  405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

'^J  Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  vifhich  it  was  borrowed. 


\I     __     CO  5=3 


^^ 


^' 


^.v 


'i 


.^.OrCAllFO/?^ 


^CSv 


lviian-# 


;a>jcei^^ 


lMNn3\\V* 
■ANCElfj-v 


> 

=o 


KlNOiVW 


JRARYOc. 
TV3J0^ 


< 

So 


MIFO% 


4? 


IwicEier; 


CO 


W/A         ,v>:lOSAJJCElfx^ 


Jl  ig 


'C'VruiAikin.iilV.^ 


UC  SOUTHtRN  RtGIO'jAL  LIBRARY  f  ACUITY 


AA    000  414  125    5 


1  '/  '■     --"'•■   :, 


f) 


\    ....  ■:■<.,.: 


'■■■:••'    'Y:^>  "   >''\    'vr:^:-:,^;i 


Universitj 

Southei 

Librar 


